[subego]

Surprised no one has mentioned this. Olbermann has done a segment on it for the last three days.

David Kuo has written a book "Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction". From what I hear, this guy has substantial Christian conservative cred.

In addition to the quote above, Rove also supposedly referred to evangelical leaders as "the nuts".

If I understand correctly, the most damning parts of the book relate to the Administration giving Christian charities the shaft, but I can't say this has quite the same visceral grab.

Any reason I shouldn't add this to the growing list of this administration's arrogance?

[Spliffdaddy]

whatever floats yer boat.

[subego]

Accuracy floats my boat.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego

Accuracy floats my boat.

I'd trust this if not for the fact that it's being released right before the election, when the Democrats and MSM's clear prime objective is try to stifle ultra-conservative republican turn-out. Just like how they held the Foley story for months, and ABC even went as far as to lie about how old one of the pages was in order to pass off some of the really lurid messages as being somehow illegal or something.

It's no coincidence that THIS story is being played out less than a month before the election. None whatsoever. I see agenda in big red letters, and that'd NEVER a good sign for "accuracy".

[BRussell]

Haha, Foley is the Democrats' fault! You should have told on us sooner! Democrats had nothing to do with revealing nor holding the story. When the Republican leadership found out about it, they specifically didn't tell the Democrats. And the author of this book is a conservative Republican evangelical Christian. He just happened to have the chance to see behind the scenes.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I'd trust this if not for the fact that it's being released right before the election, when the Democrats and MSM's clear prime objective is try to stifle ultra-conservative republican turn-out. Just like how they held the Foley story for months, and ABC even went as far as to lie about how old one of the pages was in order to pass off some of the really lurid messages as being somehow illegal or something.

It's no coincidence that THIS story is being played out less than a month before the election. None whatsoever. I see agenda in big red letters, and that'd NEVER a good sign for "accuracy".

This post made me laugh out loud. Who could honestly believe the Democrats are smart enough to plant a person within the Bush administration years ago only to bring it out today? Sorry, sport, that's plain fiction.

Here's the written version.

More on 'the nuts.'

'Another one of the eye-rolling events.'

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Haha, Foley is the Democrats' fault! You should have told on us sooner! Democrats had nothing to do with revealing nor holding the story.

A. I didn't say what Foley was doing or not doing was the Democrats faul.
B. The Democrats knew about this for MONTHS. What authorities did they contact 6 months ago when their operatives where shopping this to news sources for a story to be released at a later date? Who did they press to get this taken care of? Why did ABC distort the story in order to make it look even worse than it was?

Sorry, sport, that's plain fiction.

I never said he was a "plant". It's highly likely he's a disgruntled former employee who has an axe to grind, with the help of those in the MSM. Otherwise, they wouldn't have saved this for RIGHT before the election in order to specifically target the republican base. Don't be so naive.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

B. The Democrats knew about this for MONTHS.

What about the republicans?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

B. The Democrats knew about this for MONTHS.

Prove it. Everything I've seen shows that the Republican in charge of the 2006 Republican campaign (yes, that's right, the campaign) was informed, and the Republican in charge of the pages was informed, but no Democrats were informed.

[edit]To provide some further evidence against this BS that "the Democrats did it," look at these quotes:

The St. Petersburg Times said that last November, it received copies of an e-mail exchange between Mr. Foley and a former page from Louisiana. The newspaper said the boy, who was under age, did not want his name used, and the paper said it did not want to publish accusations based on unnamed sources. The Miami Herald apparently received the same information, although it is not clear when it received it.

Brian Ross of ABC News said he learned about the e-mail messages in August but was too busy with Hurricane Katrina and the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks to pursue them immediately. None of the organizations seemed to anticipate how big the story would become.

And this: Longtime Republican was source of emails :

The source who in July gave news media Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-Fla.) suspect e-mails to a former House page says the documents came to him from a House GOP aide.

That aide has been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote, said the source, who showed The Hill public records supporting his claim.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

B. The Democrats knew about this for MONTHS. What authorities did they contact 6 months ago when their operatives where shopping this to news sources for a story to be released at a later date? Who did they press to get this taken care of? Why did ABC distort the story in order to make it look even worse than it was?

Do you have a source for the claims of Dems knowing about Foley and not acting?

It seems that ABC actually made this out to be far rosier than it is. Heck, Republicans knew many years ago and did nada. So much for protecting kids.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Prove it. Everything I've seen shows that the Republican in charge of the 2006 Republican campaign (yes, that's right, the campaign) was informed, and the Republican in charge of the pages was informed, but no Democrats were informed.

Truthiness

I don't think anybody would be particularly surprised if it comes to light that the Democrats knew. But I haven't seen anyone produce evidence that this is the case.

[itai195]

On topic: I guess the faith-based initiative office turned out to be what a lot of us thought it would be... A government sponsored Christianity and Republican Party propaganda office. History will not judge this administration kindly.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I never said he was a "plant". It's highly likely he's a disgruntled former employee who has an axe to grind, with the help of those in the MSM. Otherwise, they wouldn't have saved this for RIGHT before the election in order to specifically target the republican base. Don't be so naive.

He's an evangelical who is disgruntled by the actions and inactions of Bush and staff. For example, on 60 Minutes last night he talked about how Bush promised a certain amount of cash for his faith-based initiatives and fell short by a large margin -- less than 1% of his promise.

Another example is what we're seeing the press cover -- people in Rove's office referring to the relisioug right as 'the nuts' and the like.

In the end it doesn't matter what we think. It matters what the evangelicals think. The author has called for evangelicals to fast from politics, that's advice I would encourage. Republicans have hiujacked faith for political gain and it's obvious as he11. Now an insider has called a foul, and rightfully so.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by itai195

History will not judge this administration kindly.

I think it will go down among the worst in history.

[subego]

Saw Kuo on Bill Maher last night. This guy is sharp as a tack.

I think it was good that the interview barely touched on the more salacious parts (such as Rove's commentary). It focused more on his "disgruntlement" with being promised 8 billion dollars per year and getting the already mentioned less than 1% of that figure.

What seemed to irritate him even more though, was the positioning of Bush as "Pastor in Chief", and that many are discouraged from criticizing Bush because of their common religious interests.

Remarking upon the insertion of religion into politics he said "Jesus loves Democrats too."

O/T Edit: Barney Frank was on Maher too, he effin' rocked the house. One of the coolest congressmen out there.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

B. The Democrats knew about this for MONTHS.

Even if they did, does that make them better, or worse than the Republicans who also knew about it for at least "months" and also did nothing.

[Spliffdaddy]

Well, it certainly can't make them worse. I'd say they're dead even.

[subego]

I wonder if the Democrat's had bitched about Foley, of course based mostly on hearsay and rumor, and had gotten some of their accusations wrong, would the Republican's be understanding?

Likewise, it looks like Foley didn't do anything illegal, so who exactly were the Democrat's supposed to tell?

I do have to admit though, the Democrats rushed for the jugular too quickly on this one with their "protect the children" BS.

The real point of the Foley thing is that it "outs" the issue of being a closeted Republican in Congress, and the unavoidable tension created when the leader of your party has gone on the record saying that the kind of sex you have should be illegal, or that a fair component of your extremely devout base would have even unkinder things to say.

It's like the whole thing with Bush being a cokehead. The problem isn't that he snorted coke, the problem is that as Governor, he would have gladly tossed you in prison for doing the same.

Edit: I know he doesn't want to throw people in jail for sodomy, just keep it illegal. The analogy isn't perfect

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

Accuracy floats my boat.

Accuracy is a myth.

-t

[hyteckit]

Accuracy is for the stupid. We Republicans don't need accuracy. Short-term memory and plausible deniability rules.

We never said stay the course.
We never said Iraq had WMD.
We never said war in Iraq will be easy.
We know nothing of torturing prisoners.
We know nothing of domestic spying.
We know nothing of the page scandal.

And that's the truth biotch.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

Accuracy is a myth.

-t

Quoted for emphasis.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Accuracy is for the stupid. We Republicans don't need accuracy. Short-term memory and plausible deniability rules.

We never said stay the course.
We never said Iraq had WMD.
We never said war in Iraq will be easy.
We know nothing of torturing prisoners.
We know nothing of domestic spying.
We know nothing of the page scandal.

And that's the truth biotch.

Not very accurate.

[ink]

Rove is an atheist that uses evangelical Christains as his own private voting block. The quote fits the man.

When are the evangelicals going to wake up, in a "Rage Against The Machine sense", and realize that they've been played by the neocons? Rush, Hannity and Rove have been pushing this button for over a decade now.

You're a great American, just like Michael J. Fox.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Not very accurate.

how so?ƒ

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by ink 

Rove is an atheist that uses evangelical Christains as his own private voting block. The quote fits the man.

When are the evangelicals going to wake up, in a "Rage Against The Machine sense", and realize that they've been played by the neocons? Rush, Hannity and Rove have been pushing this button for over a decade now.

You're a great American, just like Michael J. Fox.

So you expect them to "wake up" and then do what?

Vote for Democrats?

hahahaha. Now that won't happen.

Let 'em sleep.

[ink]

Salt Lake City Weekly - Faith and Folly

As someone who struggled to extricate myself from the fundamentalist mind-game as a teenager, I can testify first-hand to the unbelievable arrogance and frightening confidence that drives Evangelicals on the far right. The more these people quote the book of Revelations, the scarier it gets. Unlike Kuo, a lot of them have no interest whatsoever in charity. As hard as it may be for secular people to grasp, these are people who believe that the closer the world edges toward disaster the better. That’s because war, famine and economic hardship are all signs that the Second Coming is near. War, famine and economic hardship would be cause for alarm in the rational mind. In the fundamentalist Christian mind, it’s cause for celebration. According to some polls, this is the religious mindset of some 25 percent of the American voting public, the “base” that Rove and the Bush White House pander to.

As a survivor of growing up in a fundamentalist house, I can concur with this sentiment. I know that my father and my sister both sympathize with this point of view. They don't like what's happening in the Middle East, but it's a sign of the End Times [queue evil music], so it's to be expected, and even something to welcome. So, they hand over control to Karl Rove and whoever appears to be the not-anti-christ in power; trusting that they'll do the right thing by Jesus...

[ink]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

So you expect them to "wake up" and then do what?

Vote for Democrats?

hahahaha. Now that won't happen.

Let 'em sleep.

I'm optimistic.

I mean, how long can people wait for Jesus to come back before they give up?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ink 

I'm optimistic.

I mean, how long can people wait for Jesus to come back before they give up?

About a thousand more years I'd guess.

[ink]

Originally Posted by subego 

About a thousand more years I'd guess.

Gene Roddenberry thought it'd be shortly after the year 2100.

I'm hoping he's closer to the mark. I'd pray, but....

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ink 

I'm optimistic.

I mean, how long can people wait for Jesus to come back before they give up?

when their president gets them stuck in iraq?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by itai195 

Truthiness

I don't think anybody would be particularly surprised if it comes to light that the Democrats knew. But I haven't seen anyone produce evidence that this is the case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/us...gewanted=print

WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 — A liberal gay rights group said Wednesday that one of its employees, acting anonymously, had created the Web site that first published copies of unusually solicitous e-mail messages to teenagers from former Representative Mark Foley, which led to his resignation.

After the messages appeared on the Web, at stopsexpredators.blogspot.com, the Web site of ABC News followed with its own independent report. The ABC News report resulted in the disclosure of more sexually explicit electronic messages that Mr. Foley sent to other former Congressional pages."
-------

Now, unless you're going to tell me that all these liberal organizations and news sources (the first to disclose the facts) knew about Foley's problems for months but Democrats in Washington didn't, you're going to have a hard time painting this as a problem only effecting the Democrats. These aren't republicans who waited until just weeks before the election, knowing the facts for months. These were - even by the NYT's descriptions "liberals".

Does it make them better or worse? I'm not playing that game. All I'm saying is what I outlined above - these things are all calculated to do political damage by people whose first desire is for "gotcha" politics - not people seeking to do the right thing. Otherwise, all this would have been aired long ago and ABC wouldn't have misled people about the salacious messages they aired which were actually forwarded by an adult to an adult (the ones from the floor of Congress - not that it makes Foley look much better).

[ink]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Now, unless you're going to tell me that all these liberal organizations and news sources (the first to disclose the facts) knew about Foley's problems for months but Democrats in Washington didn't, you're going to have a hard time painting this as a problem only effecting the Democrats. These aren't republicans who waited until just weeks before the election, knowing the facts for months. These were - even by the NYT's descriptions "liberals".

That's why I think this whole Folley thing is rather silly.

However, I also thought that the Lewinsky thing was silly, and look what happened with that. It seems that I'm not be best judge in these matters; it's not like congress doesn't have more pressing issues to deal with...